1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

/facepalms

Oh god your stupidity.


LIARA BUILT THE CRUCIBLE THAT SHE SAYS DIDN'T WORK OFF BLUEPRINTS. Yes those things passed down from cycle to cycle were blueprints!

THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE CRUCIBLE WAS GOING TO WORK IT WAS A GUESS. YOU ARE TOLD TIME AND TIME AGAIN "IT MIGHT NOT WORK!" There's NO WAY to tell something's going to work for sure if you've NEVER USED IT BEFORE. If it was you wouldn't get **** DOA. (Dead - On - Arrival) Testing something that doesn't work in this scenario is dangerous especially when you have an alternative that will surely work (even if you have to put more time and effort into it).

BY GOD for someone calling others stupid you're certainly not the sharpest knife on the rack.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:37 .

[Dusen]

Sajuro wrote...

If you choose destroy and shoot the pipe, if it works then victory! if it doesn't then you destroyed a pipe and the races are just as hosed as they previously were.

. . . or it could initiate chain-reaction in every star causing them to go supernove wiping out all life in the galaxy. There's just no way to know what it will do, and it would be unintelligent to take the enemy, especially one that is so obviously insane, solely at its word.

[savionen]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Yeah, no. That's what we have blueprints for. A blueprint should be able to tell you how the machine is build and how it's supposed to work. You can find out any flaws in the design of the Crucible by simply analysing it's blueprint.

I'm sure glad our real-life architects are smarter than you. If all our architects would think like you, we would waste tons of resources on building incomplete buildings only to find out that it collapses because someone didn't pay attention when checking it's blueprint.

Occam's Razor cannot be applied to fictional works.

You could also say Occam's Razor would say that since Liara said the Crucible didn't work, they wouldn't bother with it.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Ryzaki wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
So when your told that something didn't work, you jus throw it out of the window? Are you really that stupid? I hope the next cycle is smarter than you are.

Usually when something that should work doesn't work, it means it's either incomplete, or it's broken. When something is broken, normal people usually try to fix it first before they throw it away.

The logical assumption here is that the next cycle will examine the Crucible and figure out why it didn't work and how they can make sure it does work this time. When they fix and upgraded the Crucible, they'll use it and beat the Reapers with it.

You throw it out the window yes when there's other avenues that'll work. Cute insult though. Also the Reapers knows about the Crucible now and they know that it was used against them. Chances are they now have measures against it. (Like how EDI tells you not to use that gun too early on Rannoch because if you do the Geth will find some way to make it worthless).

Liara didn't say they didn't build it right. She gave the plans (the same plans that have been passed cycle to cycle and hadn't ever been completed until Liara's cycle and when it WAS finally completed the damn thing didn't work) and said it didn't work.

The logical assumption is with knowlege of reaper weakenesses and what kind of tech they're weak too and the fact that they have a 50k year hibernation cycle they'd build anti Reaper weapons of their own and use it on the still hibernating Reapers. (or make a super weapon of their own unrelated to the Crucible).

Or the Reapers ignored the Yahg who were supposed to be in mid 20th century tech, found the beacon about 1000 yrs into the next cycle, and analyzed the Crucible, found the design flaws in it (Control and Synthesis which were put in by indoctrinated workers in previous cycles), built the thing opened the Citadel Relay, and fried the bastards with it while they were in Dark Space, while leaving their own relays intact.

[The Heretic of Time]

savionen wrote...

@Heretic Hanar

If the Reapers automatically step in when the organics are capable of synthetics, why did they allow the creation of the Crucible?

I... don't understand. What if they just pooled all their resources to make one huge-ass guided railgun that kills Reapers whenever they come within range? Would they have stopped that?

They did not allow anything. The Reapers didn't know the concept of the Crucible still existed. One single MacGuffin can easily be hidden from the Reapers. Our galaxy is a big place.

I don't think a huge-ass guided railgun can defeat the Reapers. Any smart Reaper would simply avoid the gun and harvest at other places far away from the gun. Or they'd simply combine forces and take down the gun together with multiple reapers. After all, the gun can only shoot at 1 reaper at a time.

[stevesyanks17hotmail.com]

Without reading a single word:

Wahh wahhh I'm angry, wahhh wahh IT is, was, and always will be wrong, so I better just slander everything. Wahhh.

[humes spork]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Yes.  But I never said that the Catalyst must be lying.  What's your point.

OP commits this problem of assumption as well, but I can't help but notice in that particular case you seem to accept it readily.

[Ryzaki]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Or the Reapers ignored the Yahg who were supposed to be in mid 20th century tech, found the beacon about 1000 yrs into the next cycle, and analyzed the Crucible, found the design flaws in it (Control and Synthesis which were put in by indoctrinated workers in previous cycles), built the thing opened the Citadel Relay, and fried the bastards with it while they were in Dark Space, while leaving their own relays intact.

Yeah ignoring the Yahg was a bit dumb...they're salarians and Krogan put together (and actually because of that if anything I'd think they'd fight the Reapers conventionally. With heavily superior weapons of course but conventionally).

[savionen]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

savionen wrote...

@Heretic Hanar

If the Reapers automatically step in when the organics are capable of synthetics, why did they allow the creation of the Crucible?

I... don't understand. What if they just pooled all their resources to make one huge-ass guided railgun that kills Reapers whenever they come within range? Would they have stopped that?

They did not allow anything. The Reapers didn't know the concept of the Crucible still existed. One single MacGuffin can easily be hidden from the Reapers. Our galaxy is a big place.

I don't think a huge-ass guided railgun can defeat the Reapers. Any smart Reaper would simply avoid the gun and harvest at other places far away from the gun. Or they'd simply combine forces and take down the gun together with multiple reapers. After all, the gun can only shoot at 1 reaper at a time.

Uggh. The Point, you missed it. They built the Crucible in secret, but they can't develop and create some massively powerful superweapon in this cycle or the next in secret? For the sake of argument, lets say the next cycle, and not this one. They've got millenia to develop this weapon, conventional victory is still impossible? Can they not figure out how the Crucible works (since it's just a big battery) and use that to to power a big weapon without talking to God-Kid?


Defending the ending really seem to be selective in logic. The Reapers are invincible, and godlike, and omnipotent, except for every single thing related to the Crucible.

Modifié par savionen, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:39 .

[jsadalia]

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

Without reading a single word:

Wahh wahhh I'm angry, wahhh wahh IT is, was, and always will be wrong, so I better just slander everything. Wahhh.

Except for this little nugget of truth, "IT is, was, and always will be wrong," what exactly was your point?

[Ryzaki]

jsadalia wrote...

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

Without reading a single word:

Wahh wahhh I'm angry, wahhh wahh IT is, was, and always will be wrong, so I better just slander everything. Wahhh.

Except for this little nugget of truth, "IT is, was, and always will be wrong," what exactly was your point?

Honestly I'd rather have IT than what we got.

[elitehunter34]

RiouHotaru wrote...

But that's what TAO is arguing.  She's arguing that Reject is the only choice that "makes sense" based on the assertion that the Catalyst is malicious/manipulative/lying/deranged/whatever negative adjective you please.

For her it "makes sense" to claim the Catalyst is inherently deceitful, when we've shown that NONE of the actions taken by the Catalyst indicate such intent.

Also, your assertion that he did so "just 'cause" makes even less sense.

You are entirely missing the point.  We only know that the Catalyst is not being deceitful because we are shown that he's not.  We don't know that the Catalyst is being truthful until after we've already made the choice.  We have no reason to believe that the Catalyst is telling the truth at the time of making the decision.  And more importantly, Shepard has no reason to believe the Catalyst because the Catalyst  created the Reapers, which by default makes him an untrustworthy entity.  

I never asserted anything.  A supposition is not the same thing as an assertion

[Dusen]

Ryzaki wrote...

The issue of Synthetics and Organics finding peace with one another? Uh...it's not really arguable. Destroy simply destroys all Synthetics (and more can be rebuilt) and Control simply controls the Reapers (sure Shep can curbstomp any new angry Synthetics but that doesn't stop the conflict from arising in the first place).

He says little more not nothing more. If you look at the designs the pieces that allow Shep to choose what are on the Crucible itself not the Catalyst. Prothy VI even tells you that a indoctrinated splinter group working on the Crucible wanted to control the Reapers (makes sense they'd build that design in).

No it's not part of his programming. The Crucible gave those choices. Not the Citadel. (Which means some indoctrinated sods put in the Synthesis and Control options in the first place). The Citadel sees opportunity and decides to go with it. Refusal makes it clear that if the Catalyst didn't want that thing functional he could turn it off.

Look again, the physical manifestations of the three choices are located soley on the Citadel. The citadel, and in turn the catalyst gives us the three choices, which makes no sense considering that two of them can lead to outcomes that go against the catalyst's supposed programming.

[elitehunter34]

humes spork wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

Yes.  But I never said that the Catalyst must be lying.  What's your point.

OP commits this problem of assumption as well, but I can't help but notice in that particular case you seem to accept it readily.

Please, stop being so confrontational and just answer my question.  What is your point?  Your matrix that you made earlier commits the problem of assuming too.  It assumes that choosing refuse will have a 100% chance of defeat. 

Modifié par elitehunter34, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:44 .

[Femlob]

humes spork wrote...

Femlob wrote...

Great job not quoting my entire post, but only the part that underlines your opinion.

I swear, people like you will be the death of me.

You mean responding to the part of your post I personally hadn't been spending the last twenty or so pages against? I'm terribly sorry you personally didn't get a copypasta of my last buttload of posts, but I'm in no particular mood to provoke the wrath of the mods by linking and quoting myself ad nauseum. I guess you'll just have to deal.

But in a nutshell, you don't have to prove the truth-value of the Catalyst's claims. All that is required is to consider the potential outcomes of whether it's lying or not -- think of it as Schrodinger's starbrat if you have to -- relative to the decision put before you and notice that you lose nothing by assuming the Catalyst's statements to be true. It's goddamn Pascal's wager reframed, to my extreme displeasure to admit being an atheist.

That's entirely discounting the notion that the Catalyst had the choice to engage Shepard when it had nothing to gain by doing so, purely for the sake of argument. "Because Mac Walters", you say; that's a metagame argument and outside the scope of this discussion as OP explicitly put it. If metagaming is off the table, "because Mac Walters" as a metagame argument is equally off the table.

Fine, I'll just repeat myself again.

Why would Shepard bother to consider anything the damn thing has to say? Based on what Shepard could have learned over the past 2.9 games, it makes far more sense to consider GlowBoy to be yet another Reaper ploy intended to indoctrinate or at least convolute than it does for Shepard to sit back and think: "y'know, this shit sounds legit".

Whether or not GlowBoy speaks the truth or not shouldn't even factor into it. Considering options offered by a thing that shows up out of the blue for more than a few seconds would go against everything Shepard stands for.

Modifié par Femlob, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:43 .

[Ryzaki]

Dusen wrote...

Look again, the physical manifestations of the three choices are located soley on the Citadel. The citadel, and in turn the catalyst gives us the three choices, which makes no sense considering that two of them can lead to outcomes that go against the catalyst's supposed programming.

You have a picture? From what I recall it was the opposite.

And yeah that makes no sense since we're told that other cycles desired those choices and were working on the Crucible.

[Zjarcal]

The Angry One wrote...

Every one of the 3 options is a leap of faith based on the word...

And why is taking a "leap of faith" strictly meta-gaming? Do we need to know, or better said, does Shepard need to know the outcome of every decision she makes in order for them to not be meta-gaming?

Will you also say that people who took the Dark Ritual in DAO were meta-gaming (because that was also a "leap of faith" since you didn't even know if the damn thing would work)?

If you want to argue that it's stupid for Shepard to trust that any of the Catalyts' options would work, be my guest, but it is NOT strictly meta-gaming (though obviously, many people do meta-game that decision), because guess what, some Shepards would be more than willing to take that "leap of faith".

[Tigerman123]

The Catalyst doesn't disable the Crucible directly, it's destroyed by the Reaper fleet, in the same way that it was prior to the extended cut if you allow time to run out.

The reason that we are shown that the Crucible deactivates is to confirm that it isn't subsequently deployed, that your choice had meaning

[The Heretic of Time]

savionen wrote...

You could also say Occam's Razor would say that since Liara said the Crucible didn't work, they wouldn't bother with it.

Ask yourself this and please think about this and give me a 100% honest answer:

If the previous cycle tells you that the Crucible didn't work for an unknown reason, yet they also deliver you the blueprints of the Crucible (Liara clearly did if you pay attention), wouldn't your first action be to ask yourself: "WHY didn't the Crucible work?"
And wouldn't your first instincts tell you to analyse this blueprint and try to figure out why the hell this thing didn't work? Wouldn't you try to find out if you could fix it's design and use it succesfully this time?

If scientists and engineers would simply throw every flawed design out of the window, humanity would still be stuck in the Dark Ages. We would not have planes today. Flying would not have been possible.

Just look at the Wayne brothers. How many flawed plane designs did they produce and test out before the got the right idea? How many flawed planes did they crash before they were succesful? But did they ever think about giving up and not bothering with flight ever again? NO! They kept changing their designs, they kept enhancing them, inproving them, until finally it worked!

With the Crucible, the testing and improving has already been done by dozens of cycles before yours. Now it's your turn to give it a shot. And with Liara's archives, the odds of succes are surely in your favor. Your cycle has a bigger chance than any cycle before you. The humans in the previous cycle almost made it, now it's up to you to finish the job!

[Ryzaki]

We didn't have to worry about mecha cthulu eating us if we tried a plane and it didn't work.

If you see a gun on the floor and someone tells you it doesn't fire and there's someone charging you are you going to pick up that gun or are you going to pick up a knife nearby? Both will successfully kill the man, (one requires a bit more effort but it's guarantted to work and the other might not even fire leaving you to be skewered). Things become quite different when life is a stake.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:48 .

[Torrible]

humes spork wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

It's still not an argument. The ending clearly indicates the Catalyst is trustworthy. My Shepard picks Destroy, does what is indicated, and the result the Catalyst claims will occur does happen. Therefore the Catalyst wasn't lying.

But that's a metagame argument, Shepard can't know that at the time s/he makes the decision! Confirming the truth-value of the Catalyst's statements is metagaming, and has no place in this discussion!

Because the Catalyst must be malevolent because Reapers, and we can only facially assume what it says is false without considering or confirming the truth-value of its claims or considering the entire breadth of potential outcomes based upon an unknown variable!

And making a cost-benefit analysis of the potential outcomes of the truth-value of the Catalyst's claims is a logical fallacy and irrational!

Good point, but deciding between a near zero chance of winning conventionally and the slightly higher chance of the Catalyst actually telling the truth (while assuming one is in a state of mental and near-death physical exhaustion) and choosing the latter, does not require metagaming.

[The Heretic of Time]

savionen wrote...

They built the Crucible in secret, but they can't develop and create some massively powerful superweapon in this cycle or the next in secret? For the sake of argument, lets say the next cycle, and not this one. They've got millenia to develop this weapon, conventional victory is still impossible? Can they not figure out how the Crucible works (since it's just a big battery) and use that to to power a big weapon without talking to God-Kid?

Sure they could try to enhance the Crucible and use it in a different way. All I'm saying is that the Mass Effect lore has made it very very clear that the Reapers can't be defeated conventionally. You'll always need to have a little trick up your sleeve. The Reapers can only be defeated by outsmarting them. That's a fact that has been established in the Mass Effect lore. Conventional victory is not possible, like it or not.

[jsadalia]

Ryzaki wrote...

jsadalia wrote...

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

Without reading a single word:

Wahh wahhh I'm angry, wahhh wahh IT is, was, and always will be wrong, so I better just slander everything. Wahhh.

Except for this little nugget of truth, "IT is, was, and always will be wrong," what exactly was your point?

Honestly I'd rather have IT than what we got.

I wouldn't, but that's just personal preference on both sides. The ending's fine in the clunky contradictory really quite silly manner that almost all video game endings share.

[savionen]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

savionen wrote...

They built the Crucible in secret, but they can't develop and create some massively powerful superweapon in this cycle or the next in secret? For the sake of argument, lets say the next cycle, and not this one. They've got millenia to develop this weapon, conventional victory is still impossible? Can they not figure out how the Crucible works (since it's just a big battery) and use that to to power a big weapon without talking to God-Kid?

Sure they could try to enhance the Crucible and use it in a different way. All I'm saying is that the Mass Effect lore has made it very very clear that the Reapers can't be defeated conventionally. You'll always need to have a little trick up your sleeve. The Reapers can only be defeated by outsmarting them. That's a fact that has been established in the Mass Effect lore. Conventional victory is not possible, like it or not.

The problem is that it's slippery logic.

The Crucible is an ultimate weapon that defeats the Reapers (for all practical purposes). If they didn't notice the Crucible being built, it could have been altered to be a big cannon of sorts (like how the Citadel was, but more guided and focused), twist that a little more, and instead of building one big weapon off of the design, they could build 100 small ones and attach them to capital ships. At what point does it start being conventional war?

[Ryzaki]

Torrible wrote...

humes spork wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

It's still not an argument. The ending clearly indicates the Catalyst is trustworthy. My Shepard picks Destroy, does what is indicated, and the result the Catalyst claims will occur does happen. Therefore the Catalyst wasn't lying.

But that's a metagame argument, Shepard can't know that at the time s/he makes the decision! Confirming the truth-value of the Catalyst's statements is metagaming, and has no place in this discussion!

Because the Catalyst must be malevolent because Reapers, and we can only facially assume what it says is false without considering or confirming the truth-value of its claims or considering the entire breadth of potential outcomes based upon an unknown variable!

And making a cost-benefit analysis of the potential outcomes of the truth-value of the Catalyst's claims is a logical fallacy and irrational!

Good point, but deciding between a near zero chance of winning conventionally and the slightly higher chance of the Catalyst actually telling the truth (while assuming one is in a state of mental and near-death physical exhaustion) and choosing the latter, does not require metagaming.

It really doesn't. Shep deciding to take a risk doesn't require metagaming anymore than Shep deciding that minisule chance is worth it means he knows everyone is automatically going to die.

And I'm really sick of the Reapers can't be defeated conventionally arguement. That was never stated in ME. Only that Shep's cycle (and previous cycles) were unable to do it because they couldn't match reaper tech and/or they got blindsided. Shep's cycle couldn't defeat the Reapers conventionally. That's a far cry from the Reapers being unable to be defeated conventionally full stop. I can't defeat a heavy weight boxer in a fist fight. That doesn't mean said heavy weight boxer can't be defeated in a fist fight.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 06:51 .